RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
June 6, 2010 at 6:05 pm
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm by Godscreated.)
[quote='Minimalist' pid='71083' dateline='1274226899']
[quote]We can be absolutely certain that there were plenty of people named Yeshua bar Yosef in first century Palestine. Both names were very common. "Jesus of Nazareth" is a bit dicier. First of all, in Judaea the residents used the patronymic rather than a place name which was, not surprisingly, more of a Greco-Roman thing.
Second, there was great enmity between Jews in Judaea and "Jews" in Galilee or any of the other areas which were conquered by the Hasmoneans in the first/second century BC and forcibly converted to Judaism. Much as with our resident xtians there was a continuous 'No True Scotsman' argument going on. Given the feelings of Judaeans towards Samaritans and other groups the odds that a Galilean would amass any sort of following is doubtful.
As far as Nazareth goes, the fairly reputable Xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann has excavated there and found one single-family farm. Xtians create much of their own problem by claiming some grandiose status for Nazareth in the first century. No one else had heard of the place. As the observation goes, the most likely question for a Judaean to ask would be "Jesus of where?"
[/quote]
Min a home has been excavated in Nazareth in 2009 this home is close to the Church of the Annunciation and dates back to the days of Jesus.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/world/meast/nazareth
Also a roman bathhouse may have been found at Nazareth dating back to the days of Jesus. The reason I say may I'm still researching the reliability of the story. If this is true it means that a roman garrison was in Nazareth will Jesus was living there. This would make for some interesting ideas about Nazareth.
[quote]We can be absolutely certain that there were plenty of people named Yeshua bar Yosef in first century Palestine. Both names were very common. "Jesus of Nazareth" is a bit dicier. First of all, in Judaea the residents used the patronymic rather than a place name which was, not surprisingly, more of a Greco-Roman thing.
Second, there was great enmity between Jews in Judaea and "Jews" in Galilee or any of the other areas which were conquered by the Hasmoneans in the first/second century BC and forcibly converted to Judaism. Much as with our resident xtians there was a continuous 'No True Scotsman' argument going on. Given the feelings of Judaeans towards Samaritans and other groups the odds that a Galilean would amass any sort of following is doubtful.
As far as Nazareth goes, the fairly reputable Xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann has excavated there and found one single-family farm. Xtians create much of their own problem by claiming some grandiose status for Nazareth in the first century. No one else had heard of the place. As the observation goes, the most likely question for a Judaean to ask would be "Jesus of where?"
[/quote]
Min a home has been excavated in Nazareth in 2009 this home is close to the Church of the Annunciation and dates back to the days of Jesus.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/world/meast/nazareth
Also a roman bathhouse may have been found at Nazareth dating back to the days of Jesus. The reason I say may I'm still researching the reliability of the story. If this is true it means that a roman garrison was in Nazareth will Jesus was living there. This would make for some interesting ideas about Nazareth.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
